Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > October 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1700 October 12, 1905 - MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA v. JOSE GARRIDO

005 Phil 137:



[G.R. No. 1700. October 12, 1905. ]

MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE GARRIDO, Defendant-Appellant.

Aylett R. Cotton, for Appellant.

Smith & Hargis, for Appellee.


1. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS — The statute of limitations applicable to an action for the recovery of money which accrued on January 1, 1884, and which was commenced on April 22, 1903, is found in the law in force in the Islands prior to the Civil Code, and the period is twenty years.



This is a personal action for the recovery of money. The cause of action accrued on the 1st day of January, 1884. The action was commenced on the 22d day of April, 1903. The case was decided in the court below, and has been argued here by both parties upon the theory that it is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code relating to prescription of actions. We think, however, that the law applicable to the case is that existing prior to the promulgation of the Civil Code, inasmuch as the prescription commenced to run prior to that date. Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure now in force is as

"To what this chapter does not apply. — This chapter shall not apply to actions already commenced, or to cases wherein the right of action has already accrued; but the statutes in force when the action, or right of action accrued, shall be applicable to such cases according to the subject of the action and without regard to the form; nor shall this chapter apply in the case of a continuing and subsisting trust, nor to an action by the vendee of real property in possession thereof to obtain the conveyance of it: Provided, nevertheless, That all rights of action which have already accrued, except those named in the last preceding paragraph, must be vindicated by the commencement of an action or proceeding to enforce the same within ten years after his act comes into effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

This act took effect on the 1st day of September, 1901, and the ten years mentioned in the proviso to said section 38 had not elapsed when this action was commenced.

Article 1939 of the Civil Code is as

"Prescription, which began to run before the publications of this code, shall be governed by the prior laws; but if after this code became operative, all the time required in the same for prescription has elapsed, it shall be effectual, even if according to said prior laws a longer period of time may be required."cralaw virtua1aw library

The prescription of personal actions, according to that code, is fifteen years. The code took effect on the 8th day of December, 1889. The fifteen years impliedly referred to in the last part of this article had not elapsed when this action was commenced.

According to the legislation in force prior to the promulgation of the Civil Code personal actions did not prescribe until the lapse of twenty years. (Law 63 of Toro, law 5, title 8, book 11, of the Novisima Recopilacion.) The twenty years mentioned in these laws had not elapsed at the time of this action was commenced. If the case at bar is included in the fourth of the transitory provisions of the Civil Code and is to be governed by the provisions of that code, the provision applicable is found in said article 1939.

What has been said disposes of the assignment of error relating to the time for which interest was allowed by the judgment of the court below.

The judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and at the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the cause remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J. Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

October-1905 Jurisprudence                 


    005 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2124 October 7, 1905 - SIMEON DU-YUNGCO v. MACARIO BARRERA

    005 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 2137 October 9, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALUYUT

    005 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1273 October 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO VARGAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 1700 October 12, 1905 - MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA v. JOSE GARRIDO

    005 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1962 October 12, 1905 - JOSE PINEDA, ET AL. v. GABINO GASATAYA

    005 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2054 October 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS BUNAGAN

    005 Phil 141


    005 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 2238 October 19, 1905 - LEONCIA LIUANAG v. YU-SON-QUIAN

    005 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 2284 October 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PARAISO

    005 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 2631 November 18, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 2631 October 21, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 1847 October 23, 1905 - VIDAL CAUSIN v. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM

    005 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 2536 October 23, 1905 - SILVINA LEGASPI v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 1442 October 24, 1905 - JOSE REGALADO v. MARIA GONZAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 1750 October 26, 1905 - GUILLERMO BAXTER, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO ZUAZUA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1923 October 26, 1905 - IGNACIO DE ICAZA, ET AL. v. MATEO O. PEREZ

    005 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 2346 October 26, 1905 - ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1403 October 27, 1905 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JUANA MORENO

    005 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2599 October 27, 1905 - CARMEN P. LINART v. MARIA JUANA I. UGARTE

    005 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 2651 October 27, 1905 - MACARIO CASTRO v. CARMEN CASTRO

    005 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 1595 October 28, 1905 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    005 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 2353 October 28, 1905 - ZOILO GARCIA VASQUEZ v. P.B. FLORENCE

    005 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 2945 October 28, 1905 - B.H. MACKE, ET AL. v. JOSE CAMPS

    005 Phil 185